Is it always just different political views or are there more fundamental psychological differences that make those views appealing to us in the first place? — Apollodorus

What is described to be "psychological" is always anchored by a philosophical and/or religious ground. For example, what it means in William James is not the same as the ground in Freud, nor the recognized diagnoses used in current Clinical Psychology.

You might be interested in George Lakoff, a cognitive linguist who focuses on how different metaphors build up different views of the world and influence our preferences therein. He focuses on the language of nurturing versus the talk of people needing the rod to be good citizens.

While that is an interesting line of inquiry, it does not displace the central role of politics which is giving more power to some at the expense of others. People with privileges want to keep them. Those deprived of them want more equality.

The scale of these differences is not proportional to the sense of responsibility for the common good. There are those who understand we have to take stewardship for the world as it is thrust upon us and those driven by pure self interest alone. I have found many examples of both from one end of the political scale to the other.

it it does not displace the central role of politics which is giving more power to some at the expense of others. People with privileges want to keep them. Those deprived of them want more equality. — Valentinus

Yea, but would you agree that the extreme political
polarization between right and left in the U.S. is not a function of power, but worldview? That is to say , explanations of who wields power, who the victims are and the reason for the inequality are entirely different depending on which side of the partisan divide you lie on.

The extreme polarization comes from not sharing a common source of information about what is happening. It is difficult to discuss causes when such large groups start from very different sets of facts.

The right wing in the US went from trying to be the "adults" in the room to full on conspiracy addicts who could never be disabused of their mistakes.

I accept that all political rhetoric is the best gloss upon an idea but Q anon is starting to be represented in Congress.

What can one say to bridge hallucination to reality?

Well, as I say, we can't all be perfect. But have you read the article I referred to in my other post? I believe it confirms much of what I was saying.

“The Psychology of Politics: How does psychology make sense of the madness of politics?” It's from Psychology Today. — Apollodorus

I’ve only skimmed your posts, and from what I’ve read seem to be all over the place in a futile attempt to promote some ideology rather than seek the truth of the matter. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

The article appears to reference moral foundations theory, judging by the snippet you posted. That theory doesn’t support anything I’ve read from you.

This study helps us understand why people with equally strong moral convictions may vehemently disagree on political issues such as abortion, capital punishment and flag burning.....So, politics does have something to do with psychology after all, But it takes a "philosophy forum" to deny it ... — Apollodorus

Let me provide a very simple example as to why psychological analysis is a poor explanatory model for political attitudes. Here is an article from Ezra Klein, a liberal political analyst, that attempts to explain, through a political psychological lens, why conservatives are far less concerned with Covid than liberals. (To be clear, this is a stupid article).

Klein writes in the article's prolegomenon that, "Put simply, conservatives are psychologically tuned to see threat, and so they fear change. Liberals are tuned to prize change, and so they downplay threat." He subsequently justifies this with several quotes from political scientists and social psychologists, including Jonathan Haidt. I will quote and emphasis:

“Liberalism and conservatism are rooted in stable individual differences in the ways people perceive, interpret, and cope with threat and uncertainty,”

Of the many factors that make up your worldview, one is more fundamental than any other in determining which side of the divide you gravitate toward: your perception of how dangerous the world is,”

“Conservatives react more strongly than liberals to signs of danger, including the threat of germs and contamination, and even low-level threats such as sudden blasts of white noise,”

Well that's weird, Klein realizes...because it's clearly American conservatives who are downplaying the virus to the point of denying it's very existence. It's completely antithetical to the statements above which emphasis, if not outright insist, on the "rooted stability" or the "fundamentality" of how reaction to threat molds political attitudes. "This is the opposite of what a straightforward read of decades of political psychology research would predict," writes Klein.

So, he asks half-a-dozen political psychologists directly to explain and they came up with three theories.

The first is that conservatives are "denying and repressing fear" and displacing directly bodily and health-related threats through fear of economic recession and instability. "For all we know," says on respondent, "Americans who are explicitly denying the problem are experiencing (even) more stress and anxiety than those who are not.” For all we know!

The second is that this is occurring because of hyper-partisanship messaging. Trump and other conservative politicians and conservative pundits are downplaying the coronavirus for political reasons. Haidt responds that Trump's message "overwhelms the small average difference in disgust sensitivity which would, ceteris paribus, have Republicans more concerned about contagion." "Small average difference"? Above he was quoted as saying that conservatives "react more strongly" to germs and contamination than liberals. Well which is it? Likewise, Christopher Federico, a political psychologist who above stated that "Liberalism and conservatism were rooted in stable individual differences" in regards to threat, responds to Klein saying "Chronic sensitivity to threat, disgust, and disease is one factor.... [but] it is not the only one. Partisanship itself is perhaps the most important factor in shaping how people respond to issues or public concerns.” So now we move from political attitudes being" rooted in stable" psychological differences to oh actually this is really all explained by Trump's political hegemony with conservatives and political propaganda.

The third explanation basically connects the two, arguing that conservatives are threatened through xenophobia by Trump's anti-China messaging.

As you can (hopefully) see, what these political scientists and social psychologists are doing is providing half-baked supplementary hypotheses as to why, in their own words, their foundational theories and essential predictions are being contradicted by real-world conditions. And when they do provide a more accurate non-psychological explanation for why conservatives are minimizing the virus threat, viz. that they are digesting a wide apparatus of conservative messaging, including propaganda from the President, that is downplaying the virus for political reasons, their "rooted" and "fundamental" theories suddenly turn into gossamer.

So does Ezra Klein also come to the similar realization that political psychology is just bunk science? No, in order to retain the authenticity of the profession he offers a bland metaphor about how political psychology is like soil. Haidt suggests it's like the foundations of a house. If all you can do to is offer metaphor to defend an ostensible scientific theory then, buddy, you don't have an actual scientific theory.

Awesome.

But holy shit people take this voodoo seriously smh.

It's crystal healing for political dilettantes.

Beating up a “stupid” article, what is it kill the scarecrow day where you live?

The article is worthless. I’m not just saying that because I find foundation theory compelling and given that you also find it worthless there’s no point in bothering to explain.

given that you also find it worthless there’s no point in bothering to explain — praxis

Pretty evident that I find it stupid, but not worthless, however if you just wanted to get a quick hit-in-run dig to make you feel a little better about yourself I'd understand.

n the U.S., side A and B inhabit different universes of thought. don’t think there is a single rhetorical game, but different games played in parallel universes. — Joshs

I was referring to the expression of belief when I talked about rhetorical games, the reason why we think the two sides are different is largely the expression of their belief, not the belief itself (as in 'a tendency to act as if...').

Furthermore, these universes tie together and inform a multitude of specific political positions: gun control , climate change , views about covid danger and mask wearing , abortion, death penalty , immigration , terrorism, identity and gender politics, patriotism, economics, religion. — Joshs

I don't think they do. Certain beliefs act as membership badges for social groups, they're simply tokens to identify you as a member, I don't see any reason to think they cohere, nor that they were even derived from 'first principles' in any way. Most people when interrogated about their beliefs can't provide coherent arguments form some mythical foundational principle - conservatism, libertarianism, compassion, whatever. The beliefs appear more like off-the-shelf position statements, often about situations they'll never even face, nor have to change their behaviour to comply with in any way. The justifications are post hoc, themes like conservatism or libertarianism are there as narrative prompts to reach for when required, off which a good story can built to explain that particular belief's place in the system.

It can allow side A to see the logic of side B’s positron from their vantage even when side A continues to prefer their own viewpoint. — Joshs

As I said, I really don't see any reason to think that Side A or B have any kind of 'logic' to their respective worldviews at all, so there's nothing to see in that respect. There are collections of positions which are generally mutually exclusive sets (though some overlap) that are adopted out of habit, conformity, personal narrative building...

To succeed at this means to no longer have to delegitimize B’s thinking. What fuels today’s polarizing political scene is not simply that the opponents see the world differently , it’s that they cannot fathom how one could in good conscience hold the views of the opposing side. This leaves only delegitimizing explanations for the other’s behavior. — Joshs

Yes, I agree, though obviously for different reasons. But delegitimising is itself a tool to shore up the boundaries of one's own group membership. If the other views seemed like other tins on the shelf at the supermarket then one's own collection would seem ad hoc and the social boundary looks vague and insecure. We need to see the other's beliefs as not-even-options, "how could one even think that?" to make the boundary of our social group seem more secure. I'm not even sure it would be a good idea to 'understand' the political choices of one's opponents in any given struggle. As you say...

Its advantage is to protect you from reacting violently, punitively, condemningly, toward the other. — Joshs

...which seems to me to be a disadvantage. Where groups are oppressed and have been serially so for decades - the poor, minorities, modern day colonies of TNCs...what's needed is more violence and condemnation. We're not going to sit round a table and resolve this.

Beating up a “stupid” article, what is it kill the scarecrow day where you live?

The article is worthless. I’m not just saying that because I find foundation theory compelling and given that you also find it worthless there’s no point in bothering to explain. — praxis

No, @Maw's got a point. I'm personally giving up work and retraining as a philosopher - I can't believe some people in my profession say things which are wrong. What with this example, and @StreetlightX's indirect reference to that classic paper "People fight poverty because they're Sagittarians" which we all studied at university as if it was gospel. I thought every single one of them was 100% correct all the time and never showed any political bias...damn. Oh well, moving over to philosophy now where I don't expect to find any ridiculous ideas at all, otherwise we'd have to abandon that entire method of analysis too...

Then maybe you can stop the others from constantly mentioning the book, too. Thanks. — Apollodorus

Yes, we'll keep it on topic.

What are you talking about? Are you an expert in the psychology of politics?

What are you talking about? Are you an expert in the psychology of politics? — frank

This entire sub-topic has already had more serious consideration than it deserved, I'm not going add the deconstruction of a sarcastic rejoinder to that trend.

Maw showed us an article from political psychology that made politically motivated post hoc rationalisation in place of good theory. From that we're supposed to conclude the entire field of study is nonsense. It's an argument too stupid to even consider, let alone respond to seriously.

If anyone's interested in discussing the flaws of the many, many, wrongheaded theories in political psychology I think that'd be very interesting, but interest is not the intention here.

So your point is that a single failure doesn't indicate that the whole endeavor has failed.

I think the reason that attempting to describe the left psychologically is bound to create false conclusions is that the left, wherever it appears, represents a fusion if diverse agendas arising out of contemporary circumstances.

I think this is what Street was referring to as the environmental aspect of it.

I’ve only skimmed your posts ... — praxis

So you haven't read the article or my posts. Just what I thought.

the left, wherever it appears, represents a fusion if diverse agendas arising out of contemporary circumstances. — frank

I never said it's just the left that should be described or analyzed psychologically.

However, by definition, the left represents opposition to the status quo. That's how it got its name, from the opposition sitting on the left in the French parliament.

And opposition means fusion of opposing forces and conflict that historically manifests itself as revolutionary movements.

However, by definition, the left represents opposition to the status quo. — Apollodorus

I don't think so. Leftism

So your point is that a single failure doesn't indicate that the whole endeavor has failed. — frank

Yes. If by 'point' you mean much the same as the 'point' that trousers go on button-frontwards, or the 'point' that one shouldn't piss upwind, then yes, my 'point' is that some people are sometimes wrong.

I think the reason that attempting to describe the left psychologically is bound to create false conclusions is that the left, wherever it appears, represents a fusion if diverse agendas arising out of contemporary circumstances. — frank

Why would the environmental embeddedness render any conclusions false? I can see why it would render conclusions which failed to account for it false, but not simply all conclusions tout court.

Streetlight's point was little more than a derogatory assumption that psychologists were incapable of contextualising their models. As if such fields were exhaustive. Ecologists are not expected to know the biology of the individual species to any lesser extent just because their models are of the networks rather than the nodes.

Yes. If by 'point' you mean much the same as the 'point' that trousers go on button-frontwards, or the 'point' that one shouldn't piss upwind, then yes, my 'point' is that some people are sometimes wrong. — Isaac

Could you go into a little more detail here? I'm not quite sure what your point is.

Why would the environmental embeddedness render any conclusions false? — Isaac

Well, let's put it this way: to psychologize a political movement, we'd need to first show that the people in the group have similar psyches. Do they?

In politics, the term Left derives from the French Revolution as the political groups opposed to the royal veto privilege (Montagnard and Jacobin deputies from the Third Estate) generally sat to the left of the presiding member's chair in parliament while the ones in favour of the royal veto privilege sat on its right.

Wikipedia, Left-wing politics

The Left Opposition was a faction within the Russian Communist Party (b) from 1923 to 1927 headed de facto by Leon Trotsky. The Left Opposition formed as part of the power struggle within the party leadership that began with the Soviet founder Vladimir Lenin 's illness and intensified with his death in January 1924.

Wikipedia, Left opposition

Precisely because they are irrelevant. Which is the point. — StreetlightX

I said ecologists are not expected to know the biology of the individual species to any lesser extent. Clumsy wording.

One cannot study the ecology of owls, voles and shrews without knowing some facts about the biology of each (specifically in this case, I believe, that owl's digestive systems extract fewer nutrients from shrews). Biology and ecology are not exclusive of each other, it would be ludicrous to suggest they had a relationship characterised by mutual irrelevancy.

While that is an interesting line of inquiry, it does not displace the central role of politics which is giving more power to some at the expense of others. People with privileges want to keep them. Those deprived of them want more equality. — Valentinus

That's exactly what highlights the problem of political power and its impact on society

Could you go into a little more detail here? I'm not quite sure what your point is. — frank

I could, but I fear I'd run out of hair, there's precious little left as it is.

to psychologize a political movement, we'd need to first show that the people in the group have similar psyches. — frank

Why? Saltpeter, charcoal and sulphur are dissimilar yet we can model the resultant mixture as a system containing all three.

Do they? — frank

That's the point of the study. Of course we could always just guess.

I pulled the trigger on that too quick, deleted my post, my mistake.

In any case, I'm not here to argue metaphors. I'm sorry to see you on the side of Nazi sympathizers who babble shit like 'the left is characterized by high degrees of narcissism' just because you get paid for your shamanism.

I'm sorry to see you on the side of Nazi sympthsizers who babble shit like 'the left is characterized by high degrees of narcissism' — StreetlightX

If a field of study committed one to all the output of that field we'd both be Nazis.

to psychologize a political movement, we'd need to first show that the people in the group have similar psyches. — frank


Why? Saltpeter, charcoal and sulphur are dissimilar yet we can model the resultant mixture as a system containing all three.

Do they? — frank


That's the point of the study. Of course we could always just guess. — Isaac

You're giving me contradictory answers.

Leftism is not defined as an opposition to the status quo. I'm not going to repeat that.

Would it be that it was it's only sin.

You're giving me contradictory answers. — frank

Am I? One says that psyches needn't be same, the other that some methodical study might be the best way to find out if they are or not.

Would it be that it was it's only sin. — StreetlightX

The same would be true of field's sins, no? Reductionism is not a flaw limited political psychology, nor is it a flaw which exhausts political psychology.